A Tale of Two Cardinals
Karen Hall posts:
In the middle of the L.A. Times article, one happens upon this staggering statistic:
In Los Angeles, some 75% of the archdiocese's 288 parishes were served at some time by a cleric accused of molesting, according to a Times study. As the scandal's details slowly emerged, it became clear that the church hierarchy knew about complaints against some priests and that at least a dozen were allowed to continue working in ministry after their conduct with children was questioned. (emphasis mine)
Now, just for fun, name another industry or organization wherein the boss could have overseen operations that led to the above quote in the L.A. times and a $600,000,000 loss for the company/organization without any consequences?
People are also bound to wonder about the obvious difference in treatment between Cardinal Mahoney and Cardinal Law. The difference between the L.A. Times and the Boston Globe's coverage of their respective cardinals is striking. The L.A. Times has had some highly critical pieces on Cardinal Mahony in relation to priestly abuse, but not very many of them.
One difference that comes to mind is the cases that came to trial in L.A. are, as Diogenes previously noted, 44 representive cases the Archdiocese agreed could be litigated in court range from 1958 to 1984. All of them prior to Mahony times Archbishop. So there is no direct linkage to the Cardinal and the details of the cases prosecuted and post 1985 abuse cases will likely be settled out of court. So we just are not going to hear about the cases where he might have been involved in covering up abuse when he was still a priest and those cases he was obviously involved in as a Cardinal.
Though even the case cherry-picking does not account for the disparage in coverage. There have been some moves in the Archdiocese handling of priestly abuse under Cardinal Mahony that have been breath taking in their arrogance. The legal maneuvering to hide records of what the Archdiocese knew such as invoking confidentially of correspondence and putting any meetings between the Cardinal and a suspect as being spiritual guidance and protected. In the case of abuser Father Nicolas Aguilar Rivera the Archdiocese prevented further interviews under the guise of fear of an immigration crackdown. All of these legal tactics should have demanded spectacular headlines form the L.A. Times and other papers, but while there was coverage it certainly wasn't amped up as the Globe's was.
The differences in coverage seem to be due to the fact that the L.A. Times is quite sympathetic to Cardinal Mahony and the issues the Cardinal has fought for over the years. Cardinal Law despite his quite obvious flaws and complicity in the abuse cover ups was quite orthodox in his theology and heavily involved in the pro-life movement and of course this made him a prime target. Cardinal Mahony in contrast makes some noises in a pro-life direction, but is hardly active in the movement and has no problem holding events for ardently pro-abortion politicians. The L.A. Times can easily see him as one of their own and while they are troubled about the abuse problems under his watch, well between friends can't we overlook some flaws? The media is certainly not going to shame Cardinal Mahony into resigning barring some yet unknown circumstances. The Cardinal is safe just as long as he doesn't become too pro-life or actually start showing signs of orthodoxy.
Known as 
The Cardinal is safe just as long as he doesn't become too pro-life or actually start showing signs of orthodoxy.
I don't think that will be a problem...
Jester,
You hit the nail on the head. The chancery in LA is the Democratic party at prayer, and the LA Times is house organ of the Democratic party. It is all about money and politics. Were the Holy Father to remove the Cardinal from his post (an unthinkable thought), it would provoke a schism within the American Church. The Holy Father is not going to take this risk, so the Cardinal Archbiship will remain where he is until the mandatory retirement age of 75. To repeat, it is all about money and politics.
HizEminence's "chummyness" with the activists in the homosexual community of LA also keeps the teflon nice and slippery. Not to mention the "Immigrants Rights" crowd.
The designer of the LA Archdiocese website is a deacon, ordained by Mahony himself, who is openly gay and speaks of a certain churchman in the upper echelons of ecclesiastical [sic?] power who forsees eventual church acceptance of gay couples as legitamate.
This churchman of whom Deacon Eric Stoltz speaks is described as, "... the publicly orthodox Western bishop who says privately that the Catholic Church will recognize gay unions within the next 20 years." [my emphasis]
Sooooo . . . don't hold your breath. The way things look, only Devine justice will solve a problem like Mahony.
1,323 more days til ole red joins gumby. Can't happen soon enough.
More importantly, name another industry or organization wherein the above quote could occur, and the federal government not step in with some, probably RICO enhanced, indictments? You all should be a little more grateful for the preferential treatment and light punishment your organization received. Had I been in charge, some serious discipline would have been administered.
Hoodlum,
Easy answer - Public Schools. The rate of abuse in Public schools is around 7 percent which means that year that 3 million out of 45 million are abused in the Government public school system by the time they make it to 11th grade. But with these schools you have an extremely limited amount of time to sue and damages are capped at around 150,000. The states are not removing the statue of limitations so that older cases can be tried as in the case of Catholic priests. But you won't see any Federal government step in to stop the increasing abuse.
Though I certainly think priests should be held to a higher standard morally, just not a higher standard legally.
By all indications the rate of abuse by Catholic priests peaked in the seventies and early eighties and the majority of cases are from this time. Public schools though have no such decline.
The chancery in LA is the Democratic party at prayer, and the LA Times is house organ of the Democratic party.
Which is why I'm not entirely displeased that the Archdiocese will be sending $660 million to victims instead of spending that money to assist "labor organizations" in spreading their union poison.
This reminds me of how semianrians are to act if they want to survive the seminary at St. John's in Camarillo. (LA arch. seminary) They call it "submarine", to dive below the surface and hide from detection of any adhearance to the church or show of piety. Otherwise if they catch you they throw you out. Cndl. FullofMoney went there. I just don't think he came up for air enough. Sufficated his faith for staying down too long.
So, does this mean he'll have to sell the Cathedral to pay up? Or are ordinary Joe and Jane Pewsitter gonna be stuck with the bill?
I have been told that the overwhelming majority of victims were boys. Can anybody confirm that the vast majority of these abuses were carried out by homosexual priests? Can anybody confirm what the average age of the victims was.
Peter
Peter,
The John Jay Study sponsored by the Bishops reported that 81% of the victims of sexual abuse by priests were male and the "majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
I don't know how L.A. breaks down specifically.
The John Jay Study sponsored by the Bishops reported that 81% of the victims of sexual abuse by priests were male and the "majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
Thanks. This confirms I was getting a snow-job during my VIRTUS training. The material and instructional videos pratically fell over themselves trying to get us to bite that the scandal had little to do with homosexuality.
I forgot to mention an excellent book that delves into the ephobophile and other moral problems in the Church. It's called After Asceticism: Sex, Prayer and Deviant Priests.
Permit me two comments.
1. There is in the Diocese of Orange a parish that was home to at least four of the accused priests, two of whom have admitted wrongdoing including one who is now dead.
2. Must be getting old, can remember when the L.A. Times was a bastion of Republicanism.